sips none of the changes will be visible from the outside, i don't feel this will negatively impact anyone. sincerely, brian warner. president olague: thank you. are there any additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, d.r. requester, you have two minutes of rebuttal. >> we certainly sympathize with the new owners' desire to have their house opened for their grandparents and children as well. i notice that the people who are being represented here either have their own parking of straight or do not own a vehicle. they are not directly affected by the parking situation as i am. we also have letters from the no. 8, there were in -- they

were in favor of the proposal. it is all i can say. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes for bottle. -- rebuttal. president olague: the public hearing is closed. commissioner borden. commissioner borden: it seems like the requestor has gone other -- through other processes to shut down this project. it makes me upset when i feel people are abusing the public process for an ax to grind. i cannot understand his need for the parking space. not to say that parking is not necessarily difficult. as a commission, we generally support people who do not want

to add more parking because we're trying to get more people who want to walk, by, and take many. i cannot imagine a precedent where we would make someone provide a parking space anyway. for me, i find this dr baseless. it is an abuse of the system. you went to the board of supervisors, you went to permit appeal, this is a legalization that make sense. we're not changing the footprint. i have a hard time understanding what is going on and i am frustrated because i was -- which the system would not allow people to put people through this process. it is unfair. very much of her. i will not move to take the dr. >> second. >> i agree. this is a renovation of a building that sat in this repair, basically vacant for a long time.

if it was occupied, it was in bad shape. that is something we need to encourage. for a bit of an explanation, i read the case report. there was apparently an expansion long before 1970 when the bernal heights request came into being. it was a conforming expansion at the time. this parking requirement of the 2000 additional square feet was not in place. this is all that has been decided by permit appeals and to go through the history of the case, that is not before us. and so what is before us is a division that is code compliant. it is rh-2. the parking, there is no parking, there will not be but it is not going to change anything. i do not think it is going to

intensify the parking demand any. so i do not see any reason why we should not approve just as people oftentimes want to merge units, we should allow them where it is appropriate to split a unit up for their use is and i am in favor of the motion. commissioner sugaya: i have a question for staff. in september 2010, there was a complete -- complaint and in september, there was a stop work order issued. was the complaint legitimate? >>was the to investigate the complaint? >> it was to give us time to investigate, to see if there was a violation or not. commissioner sugaya: the dr requestor ticket to the board of

appeals? >> it was a little complicated. there was a permit which we found from the 1970's at that time. they may have exceeded the scope of their 1970's permit and that is what went before the board of appeals who then ruled that what was existing as of today. was legally existing. >> thank you. for the project architect. this has not got anything to do with planning but i am curious. on the plans i have before me, on the lower floor, the first floor. is this the floor that the grandparents will be occupying? >> yes. the bathroom only has a toilet and sink. i am curious. >> good question. the entire bathroom is a shower.

the floor/ slopes to a drain. there is access to a shower. >> thank you. president olague: commissioner moore? vice president miguel: -- commissioner moore: large homes are suitable to be subdivided. i strongly am in support and this is an innovative model. contrary to the project we heard a few minutes ago where to retired people wanted to build 2000 square feet for themselves in a small alley way it was too much. i do believe this is forward- looking thinking within the policies of looking at space

standards which are good standards pullback to identification -- densification. it is a good project and i understand the idea of a walk-in shower. >president olague: commissioner sugaya confirmed some things. there is questions around the permitting process. there was some sense that maybe serial permitting. i am trying to get a sense of the concerns and if you could clarify some of that. >> when the property owner bought the property, there was an existing complaint. an existing one that was filed anonymously that there was an

illegal yet in the building. once the property owner was made aware of this, he filed for a permit in march 2010 to essentially abate the violation and return -- from of the kitchen or whatever illegal kitchen was there and return it to a compliant single-family dwelling. the building needed other repairs so that is when they began to file for permits to do improvements, interior alterations. during the construction process, they discovered that certain walls had to be demolished because they were not salvageable. that is when another complaint was filed the that they were building outside the scope, they were demolishing. the inspectors essentially made them do it because they were not safe structures president

olague: that clarifies a lot. -- there were not safe structures. president olague: that clarifies a lot. >> that march 17 permit was approved by planning and it did meet the matrix for developing. it had an interior stair connection and laundry. we approved that correctly. president olague: thank you. these are decent people on both sides so i am hoping there is a way -- things have gotten pretty horrendous, i think in terms of everything. i do not know if there is any way it will be escalade ever but i am hoping it does. i hope it does. they're good people. this is one of those uncomfortable situations.

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i am supportive of the project as mentioned. i would not -- we are asking to split and legalize the other unit which is a different situation. this is compliant because it is rh-2. it is fine. it is what works for this particular project sponsor and these families and that is what we should be supporting. likewise, we should also support people who, for other reasons, want to expand their homes, they want to have multigenerational, they want to remain one unit. i think what our job is to try to wear appropriate to allow people to accommodate their needs in san francisco and it may be smaller and dancer and it may be larger. it depends if our job is to make sure it is compliant and does not unduly harm other parts of

the neighborhood or other people in the neighborhood. >> it helps to understand that it was since the 1970's that edition was not legal at that point. there was -- the new owners took it on after that was already initiated. that is where a lot of confusion -- >> there was a permit from the 1970's, and the inspector, they may have exceeded the scope at that time. i spoke with the building inspector who had requested they demolished those walls that were not sound, there were the approximate age of the building and he concurred it was sometime around the 1970's. >> this is one of those instances, there is distress over the changes that occurred but maybe this is not the best example of a negative change in

many ways. these are people who have their children in public schools and teach in public schools. i am hoping there is a way that some of this will result over time. i do not know. >> we hope so, too. >> there is a motion on the floor t. thank you, the motion passes unanimously. president olague: thank you. commissioner>> you are on item .

>> good evening. you have before you ever request for discretionary review to add a 378 sq ft auto body spray paint booth to the new auto repair crash in an existing industrial building with no expansion to the building envelope. the subject property is located on a through a lot from folsom to brush street between langdon and eighty. i-- eighth. it is currently operating as an auto repair garage. this is another case that is coming before you today as a result of the code enforcement complaint. in april, the department

received a complaint that the business was operating without a permit and as planning department staff, i began to investigate and found they began their permitting process but did not complete it. we issued -- made them come in and get a permit. this is the permit before you today. the neighbors complained once they found the business owners were building, constructing this auto body spray paint booth, and applied for a block of notation. when the permit came in, i issued the block of notice to the 10-day letter to the block book holder. and that is when they followed -- filed discretionary review in july.

some issues in consideration in this case is that a major auto repair rush is defined is principally permitted and we can approve it what we call over the counter at our planning information center, which we actually did inadvertently even though we were supposed to hold it. we have since suspended the permit and that is why it is before you today. there is -- it is in the slr zoning district. if the project sponsor had completed correctly, they would have been operating and having all their proper authorization. the dr requestor has requested they tried to do this in a way that does not vent externally.

it is some -- close to some residences. there is no such thing as a spray paint booth that does not vent outside the building. it is required to ban. there is an existing enclave in the zoning district a little bit away. in the western soma plan, there is the potential for that to be extended to brush place and rogers which they dr requestor are part of. the subject site will be post -- potentially folsom nct. provided they do not use the alleyway of the r.e.d. frack says. those are things to consider. in your consideration of the case. i have some letters, three

letters of support and four letters in opposition for your review. i also have some information about bay area air quality management district if your interested to know about that. thank you very much. that is my presentation. president olague: thank you. dr requestor. >> madame president and members of the commission, thank you for time. i am a 15-year resident of san francisco and a six year resident and first-time homeowner living at 27 rogers street. my building at 2329 roger street is a 100 year-old building adjacent to another 100-year- old residence that is adjacent to the property located at 1116

-- 1161 folsom street. i filed a discretionary review due to my feeling that do process was not upheld during the opening of this business and also, based on my awareness of the western soma plan and the rezoning, i filed this discretionary review to elevate the conversation to beyond just the existing zoning, which historically, i understand, grants principal use for auto body as if understand from my first conversation. 20 years ago was the last time an auto body shop was present on this side and since then, has been operating as -- had been operating as a clothing

manufacturing and distribution business. when we found out the business was operating, we had never seen any public notice on front of the building. no one had seen any public notice indicating any construction was going on at all, or that a new business was coming in. little known what to me seemed like a chase of -- change of use. i am not privy to the details of the change of use but it was clothing manufacturing beforehand, i am curious to know what the requirements are there. also relative to the proposed residential district, i wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity to communicate the nature of our neighborhood as being very residential and worthy of that status. i have some handouts here that will help communicate some of these points i am about to make.

to briefly touch on it, the orientation to the neighborhood. this is the project site. this is my residence on rogers street here. another 100-year-old building here. with 11 units. another red district as well as residences across the street. the subject site as you can see is engulfed in residential units and just for context, the proximity of the events for the proposed auto body are within 20 feet at high level from my kitchen. -- my levso you can understand e

concerned. the goal of my speech today is more about informing the commission so they can provide live council on the strategic planning decision as much as possible, given the information at hand. also to request if it is not possible to prevent the permit due to current code, then to impose conditions based on the spirit of the western soma r.e.d. district requiring certain conditions be applied to auto body shops within 50 feet of an r zone. some of the information that is critical for the commission to understand is the site that was not included in the summary, it

was within more than 500 feet of a school on seventh street. and i'm running out of time. we have certain conditions we would like to impose, request to impose and ask the commission to authorize, express their discretionary authority. no venting of fumes into residential units by the health and safety code. the shop operates during normal business hours. president olague: thank you. we may call you back up to read through the list. speakers in support of the dr requestor.

whoever wants to come up in any order. speakers in support of the request please come up to the mike at this point. >> good evening. i am an owner at 59 rogers. i am requesting that we look at an exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. i have an image here to show where our building is. the building is right here. we share a party-line with the auto body both. our bedroom window is right here.

this is the top of our building which is all skylight and we are down wind from the spray booth. i actually experienced the fumes entering my condo. the auto body shop was operating without their permit and using the spray booth. i filed two complaints because it filled our home. i am a new mother. i was nine months pregnant when this happened. i am also an asthmatic. not only that, we create products and we use these exact -- this exact paint in creating models. i'm aware of the toxicity of the paint. that does not mean they do not fume. in the ventilation system that

is created like the ones we have there and in our company do not prevent fumes. they can filter particulates but not fumes. the fumes give me a headache. they filled my lungs. i almost had an asthma attack. it was pretty intense. the area quality-control and he confirmed they were using the blues. it was the beginning, they had not been in full operation. if this is the experience we're going to have with just the initial operation, i imagine when they are in full effect. i wanted to show here that they are keeping the back door open. this is their spray booth located right here. even the best filtration system, the outgasing with the opening of the door, you cannot contain this.

they are isocyanates. there are codes that they are odorless. this venting is our from our window as well. i encourage you to not grant this permit. there is nothing that we can do to contain these films and not allow them to enter our home. thank you. president olague: thank you. are there additional speakers in support? as someone finishes, if you could start coming up to the mike. >> thank you. i am paul miller. caroline's fiancee. my main concern is obviously as a new father the health and welfare of my family. in understanding the fumes, knowing that a spray booth is 20

feet away from our windows and ventilation is problematic for me. i think with all the other issues going around, i think the ventilation of these -- the spread paint booth is the most important. i am opposed to it. in support of businesses in the soma area, spray paint booths are another story. thank you. >> i am a resident and owner of 23 rogers which is the same building. i share property line with the auto body shop and m.a. six-year resident of the area. i like to support local industry. i have noticed them walking by because it is one of the cool worse -- warehouse space is in

our neighborhood and i noticed the band's went out -- while out in the backyard watering plants. i do like to support local industries, my mechanic is two blocks away on mission and my honda civic is a pretty good example of a car that does really well with the great mechanic and does not necessarily need of a body or paint. i do park on the street. i did chat a little bit with -- we get a lot of notices from the businesses in the area when permits are posted. i try to read them on the windows, even though i do not understand always what they're talking about. the one air quality thing i talk to a business owner, they posted when they started roasting coffee and i asked them what air quality things they have to go through to get their permits. they mentioned because of their

proximity to the elementary school, they had to be pretty strict and although i do own a car, i on a bike and have might clipper card so i appreciate that folsom is a biking street so i request the commission does their discretionary view on the permit. thank you for staying solely tonight. >> good evening. i am glenn walters. i live at 25 rogers. i feel like we were not mine -- notified. it has shown a disrespect for the people who live in our neighborhood. i cannot be sure that even if they mitigate the toxic emissions from this, i cannot be sure that we can trust them since they have already been sort of underhanded about going into this in the first place.